John C Klensin wrote:
rules like this are ultimately useless unless ICANN agrees to
them, presumably via the gNSO, one at a time, and via a PDP
As long as PDP translates into "individual Last Call comments"
for a future draft-ietf-idnabis-952bis that's fine.
Nothing rush like <http://idn.icann.org/Special:Recentchanges>
it seems to argue that we should be conservation about what
names we reserve and thereby promote.
Sure, there also rules about not creating confusingly similar
TLDs, proposed TLDs exmaple or examlpe won't pass that check.
Perhaps we should ask ICANN to reserve all single-letter TLDs
(in any script) for IETF use.
s/ICANN/IANA/, and that is an odd idea. We don't need 2**20
example TLDs. But a few would be nice, for examples in EAI
and IDNAbis drafts, or similar.
Ietf mailing list